F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Great thread on the first couple days of the offensive.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A journalist quoting an anonymous senior US intelligence official doesnt equal an official US intelligence statement. It is basically a journalist speculating.for average joe this mean one thing
View attachment 933339
russia fired the missile . it didn't say russian made missile, it say russian missile so what i post was truth and what you try to do is spin the facts
is this time any different ? isn't it the same and the official was not unnamed thenA journalist quoting an anonymous senior US intelligence official doesnt equal an official US intelligence statement. It is basically a journalist speculating.
An anonymous quote is speculation. Your article quote someone anonymous. We might as well take any statement by Putins minons at face value, but we all know they are taking the public for a ride.is this time any different ? isn't it the same and the official was not unnamed then
Did the russian really fight hard to take the coastline in southern Ukraine? Not really. It was taken using bribes an surprise. They hardly fired their weapons until reaching Mariupol. Russia attacking Ukraine anno 2023 wouldnt have a chance reaching mainland Ukraine from Crimea.I don't think the Ukrainians will be able to dislodge the Russians by the end of the year at this rate. It's almost the middle of the year and their offensive should have been well on its way, pushing back the Russians and retaking land. The push south to Mariupol is unlikely to succeed, the Russians are not going to let that happen given how hard they fought to take it. If the Ukrainians do not defeat the Russians by the end of this year, the US and NATO will force them to concede territory for peace, because this stalemate is unsustainable for Western nations. A settlement of sorts will then allow what remains of Ukraine to join NATO, and the US will then move into Ukraine with troops and strategic weapons to guarantee Ukraine's security, i.e exactly what Russia didn't want. That is why the US and NATO have drip-fed the Ukrainians with just enough weapons to keep the Russians from taking over the entire country and bleeding themselves. If the US and NATO were serious about defeating the Russians, they could have easily done so by providing the Ukrainians with massive amounts of F-16s, Abrams, armour, etc., especially after 2014.
Reaching Tokmak and some heavy HIMARS strikes on crossings of the Molachna River running towards Melitopol and the division is practically achieved.Watch Tokmak. Lots of reports of heavy HIMARS and artillery attacks on Tokmak, with heavy assault towards it. This may be the main push.
What would happen to NATO if the US withdraw? Am not interested in hearing about objections of the idea. Am asking on the real effects of NATO if the US withdraw, and the consequences on Europe.Drumpf was not at all interested in Europe improving its defense.
What he was interested in was that European countries increased their spending on US arms. The evidence for this was that he was really pissed off when the idea of joint purchases of European arms was proposed.
He argued by incorrectly stating that Europeans failed to meet their committments. In this, he showed a total misunderstanding how the defense of NATO is financed.
Alternatively, he was told by his master that this was the motivation he should give to accomplish Putin’s goal of disassembling NATO leaving Russia in a much better position to overrun former Soviet states.
Now when Putin has played his card, the 2% ambition by 2024 agreed upon under Barack Obama seems to be met by almost everyone, removing the argument for Drumpf to leave NATO,. Putin might have to find another servant.